Background
Brandon Lee was convicted of aggravated vehicular hijacking and aggravated battery with a firearm after Eric Gray testified that Lee shot him in the face and took a vehicle they disputedly owned. Lee testified that he shot Gray in self-defense after Gray produced a gun. The trial court merged the aggravated-battery conviction into the vehicular-hijacking conviction and imposed an aggregate 43-year sentence, consisting of 18 years plus a 25-year firearm enhancement. Lee was 20 years old at the time of the offense.
In an amended postconviction petition, Lee asserted actual innocence based principally on Christopher Johnson’s affidavit recounting Gray’s alleged admission that Gray pointed a gun at Lee and had lied about being carjacked. Lee also alleged that his sentence violated the Illinois Constitution’s proportionate penalties clause, supporting the claim with research concerning emerging adults and an individualized report from Dr. James Garbarino. The circuit court dismissed the petition at the second stage, finding the supporting affidavits incredible and the sentencing claim procedurally barred and substantively deficient.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court reversed the second-stage dismissal of Lee’s actual-innocence claim. Taking Johnson’s affidavit as true, as required at that stage, the court held that it was newly discovered, material, noncumulative, and sufficiently conclusive to make a substantial showing of actual innocence. The affidavit could place the trial evidence in a different light because it supported Lee’s account that Gray threatened force first. The circuit court improperly made credibility findings and resolved conflicts between the affidavit and the trial evidence.
The court also held that Lee made a substantial showing that his sentence violated the proportionate penalties clause as applied to him. Dr. Garbarino’s individualized report connected Lee’s developmental immaturity and childhood adversity to his decision-making and emotional regulation at age 20. Neither the presentence report’s different description of Lee’s childhood nor procedural-bar doctrines justified dismissal, and Lee could pursue the claim even though his 43-year sentence was not a de facto life sentence. The court remanded both claims for third-stage proceedings without expressing an opinion on their ultimate merits.
Key Takeaways
- At the second stage of Illinois postconviction proceedings, courts must accept well-pleaded facts not positively rebutted by the record and may not decide credibility or resolve evidentiary conflicts.
- A new affidavit supporting self-defense can make a substantial showing of actual innocence when, if believed, it probably would change the result on retrial.
- An emerging adult may bring an as-applied proportionate-penalties challenge supported by individualized developmental evidence even when the sentence is not a de facto life term.
Why It Matters
The order reinforces the limited screening function of second-stage postconviction review: conflicting testimony does not permit a court to brand new evidence fabricated without an evidentiary hearing. Credibility and weight belong at the third stage.
It also confirms that Illinois proportionate-penalties claims by emerging adults are not categorically limited to life or de facto life sentences. The decision is a nonprecedential Rule 23 order, subject to the limited circumstances in which Rule 23(e)(1) permits citation.